Large rubric vs. subrubric specificity
Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 3:53 am
Hi All,
I've always wondered why it is that some of the remedies in small
subrubrics are not included in the larger main rubrics from which
the subrubrics arise.
In some cases, it appears that the subrubric is so highly
specialized, that it is only applicable under very specific
circumstances; hence, it is not considered relevant on a more
general basis (?) On the other hand, is this to say that if a
remedy is found to cause, for instance, paroxysmal sneezing for a
specific period of time (subrubric), it can't also be said that it
simply causes paroxysmal sneezing (larger rubric)?
Example: At present, I'm considering Petr in a case that includes
hayfever. Petr is *not* included in the rubric NOSE - SNEEZING -
paroxysmal.
Nor is it listed in the subrubric
NOSE - SNEEZING - paroxysmal - prolonged paroxysms.
It is, however, the only remedy under
NOSE - SNEEZING - paroxysmal - prolonged paroxysms - lasting 4 to 6
hours with sinking of strength.
Should I conclude from this that unless the sneezing paraxoysms are
4 to 6 hours long with sinking of strength, Petr is *not* known to
cause sneezing paroxyms of shorter duration or without the
concomitant of sinking of strength; hence, its exclusion from the
larger, more generalized, rubric? Should it then be concluded that
the nature of Petr sneezing must be consistent with the very
specific criteria of the subrubric?
I don't dismiss remedies because of the absence of a symptom, a
negative being impossible to prove. But when a remedy is listed in
a subrubric with a highly specific description of a symptom, and is
missing from the larger rubric, I can't help but wonder about its
applicability under any other cirucumstances aside from the specific
ones described.
Can anyone shed any light?
Toni
I've always wondered why it is that some of the remedies in small
subrubrics are not included in the larger main rubrics from which
the subrubrics arise.
In some cases, it appears that the subrubric is so highly
specialized, that it is only applicable under very specific
circumstances; hence, it is not considered relevant on a more
general basis (?) On the other hand, is this to say that if a
remedy is found to cause, for instance, paroxysmal sneezing for a
specific period of time (subrubric), it can't also be said that it
simply causes paroxysmal sneezing (larger rubric)?
Example: At present, I'm considering Petr in a case that includes
hayfever. Petr is *not* included in the rubric NOSE - SNEEZING -
paroxysmal.
Nor is it listed in the subrubric
NOSE - SNEEZING - paroxysmal - prolonged paroxysms.
It is, however, the only remedy under
NOSE - SNEEZING - paroxysmal - prolonged paroxysms - lasting 4 to 6
hours with sinking of strength.
Should I conclude from this that unless the sneezing paraxoysms are
4 to 6 hours long with sinking of strength, Petr is *not* known to
cause sneezing paroxyms of shorter duration or without the
concomitant of sinking of strength; hence, its exclusion from the
larger, more generalized, rubric? Should it then be concluded that
the nature of Petr sneezing must be consistent with the very
specific criteria of the subrubric?
I don't dismiss remedies because of the absence of a symptom, a
negative being impossible to prove. But when a remedy is listed in
a subrubric with a highly specific description of a symptom, and is
missing from the larger rubric, I can't help but wonder about its
applicability under any other cirucumstances aside from the specific
ones described.
Can anyone shed any light?
Toni